## PLACER COUNTY

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT



# STAFF REPORT

RULE 2 18

ARCHITECTURAL C OATING S

PROPOSED RULE AMENDMENT S

OCTOBER 14 , 2010Staff Report

– Revision to Rule 2 18 October 14, 2010 Page 2

BACKGROUND

R ule 2 18

, ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS

, limits the volatile organic compound (VOC) conten t of architectural coatings that may be used, sold, or manufactured in the District. The rule was last

amended by the District on December 13, 2001

.

The District is proposing amendments to Rule 218 based on a “ Suggested Control Measure for

Architectural Coatings ” (SCM) issued on October 26, 2007

, by the California Air Resources Board

. The SCM provides VOC limits for 19 coating categories that are more stringent than t hose in

current Rule 218. The SCM is intended for Districts , like Placer County, which ne ed VOC

emission reductions for attainment of Sta te and Federal ozone standards. The SCM is considered Best Available Retrofit Control Technology, which is part of the District’s plan to meet ozone reduction requirements as required under California Health and Safety Code Section 40919; and meets the District’s requirement under California Health and Safety Code Section 40914 to implement “every feasible measure”.

This Staff Report addresses amendments that are proposed to Rule 2 18 based on the SCM . This is an early meeting of the SIP commitment to adopt the SCM’s provisions by 2012.

The coating category and VOC limits based on the SCM are proposed to be effective July 1,

2011.

DISCUSSION

Rule amendments, in underline/strikeout format, are shown in Att achment #1. Specific changes

to the R ule include:

Section 10 0

. General

Section 102. Applicability. The provision covering “blends or repackages” has been

added to expand R ule applicability to those activities

.

Section 200. Definitions

Changes to de finitions were made based on SCM coating categories :

Seventeen (17) definitions of existing coating categories will no longer be effective after July 1, 2011 , including: Antenna Coating, Antifouling Coating, Clear Brushing La c quers, Clear Wood Coatings, F ire Retardant Coatings, Flow Coating, La c quer, Non

- industrial Use, Quick Dry Enamel, Quick Dry Primer Sealer Undercoater, Sanding Sealer, Sealer, Secondary Coating, Temperature Indicator Safety Coating, Undercoater, Varnish, Waterproofing Concrete/Masonry

Sealer

Twenty (20) new definitions of coating categories have been added which will be effective after July 1, 2011 , including: Aluminum Roof Coating

, Basement Specialty Coating

, Concrete Masonry Sealer

, Driveway Sealer

, Manufacturer ’ s Maximum Thinning Re commendation

, Medium Density Fiberboard

, Particle

Board

, Pearlescent

, Plywood

, Reactive Penetrating Sealer

, Secondary Industrial

Materials

, Semitransparent Coating

, Stone Consolidant

, Tub and Tile Finish Coating

, Veneer

, Virgin Materials

, VOC Regulatory Co ntent

, VOC Actual Content

, Wood Coating

, Zinc

- Rich Primer

Section 300. Standards

Section 301

. VOC Content L i mits

. C oating categories and VOC limits under the existing

R ule are amended to be effective until July 1, 2011. Effective after July 1, 2011, n ewStaff Report

– Revision to Rule 2 18 October 14, 2010 Page 3

coating categories and VOC limits from the SCM have been added which replace the existing categories and limits

. A list of the categories which will no longer be effective after July 1, 2011

, has been added.

Section 302

. Most R estrictive VOC Limits

. Exemptions from this section were made consistent with the coating categories of the SCM.

Section 303. Sell Through of Coatings

. The “Averaging Program” provision was deleted

.

Section 306 . Rust Preventative Coatings. This s ection was deleted because th e SCM

does not differentiate between non

- industrial and industrial use.

Section 30 6 . Coatings not Listed in Section 301. A new category was added

-- Non

- Flat High Gloss

-- as a potential option for categorization of non

- listed coatings.

Section 307. Ea rly Compliance. A new section is added allowing compliance with the

new SCM

- based VOC limits prior to July 1, 2011.

Section 308

. Lacquers

. This section was deleted as it is no longer consistent with

established coating compliance operations , is not part of the SCM , and is not used in practice

.

Section 309

. Averaging Compliance Option

. T his provision was deleted as it is no longer

consistent with established coating compliance operations , is not part of the SCM, and is not used in practice.

Section 400

. Administrative Requirements

Section 401 .3 . VOC Content. L abeling requirements were modified based on the SCM

.

Section 401.4

. – 401.14 Various Coating Categories

. Various product labeling requirements were added, modified, and deleted based on the SCM

.

Section 402 . Calculation of VOC Content. This provision was m oved to the definition

section

.

Section 500. Monitoring and Records

Section 501

. Reporting Requirements. Deleted various CARB annual reporting requirements. R eplaced with new Section 501

. 1. “Sales Data” , requiring that coating manufacturers provide, within 180 days of request of the CARB or District, information of product volume sales and product VOC composition

.

Section 502

. Recordkeeping

. New section has been added requiring the repor ting in Section 501 be kept for 3 years.

Section 503

. Test Procedures. T his sections t itle was changed to “Test Methods and Compliance Provisions

. ”

Section 503.1

. Calculation of VOC C ontent

. A new section was created from the current

R ule Section 402 and the SCM.

Section 503.4 Test Methods

. R eference was added to numerous additional test methods, and minor changes were made to the references of methods in the cur rent R ule.Staff Report

– Revision to Rule 2 18 October 14, 2010 Page 4

Appendix A

- Averaging Provision

This section was eliminated , as this averaging provision is not part of established coating compliance operations, is not part of the SCM , and is not used in practice

.

ANALYSIS

The following Analysis and the subsequent Findings are intended to address the requirements set

forth in the Healt h and Safety Code relating to adoption of a new or amended District Rule, as well as

other St ate statutes referenced herein.

1. Cost

- Effectiveness of a Control Measure

California Health & Safety Code (H&S) Section 40703 requires a District to consider an d make public “the cost

- effectiveness of a control measure”. The cost effectiveness has been estimated at $1.00 per lb of VOC reduced

.

2. Socioeconomic Impact

H&S Section 40728, in relevant part, requires the Board to consider the socioeconomic impact o f any new or amended rule if air quality or emission limits are significantly affected. The estimated cost of meeting the amended proposed rule was estimated at the time of SCM development to be an increase, on average, of $1.00 per gallon to the consumer (about a 5% increase from current consumer price). Today’s actual price increase will be significantly less that this outdated estimate, as many currently available products have been

reformulated to meet the SCM standards and manufacturers continue to d evelop and offer compliant coating products.

3. Environmental Review and Compliance

California Public Resources Code Section 21159 requires an environmental analysis of the reasonably foreseeable methods of compliance should be conducted. Compliance of the proposed rule amendment is expected to be achieved by the replacement of current coating products with compliant compounds. Application of these compliant compounds will generally result in less VOC emissions from the coating activities. Therefore, t he proposed rule amendment will reduce emissions from sources and will not cause any significant adverse effects on the environment. Staff has concluded that no adverse environmental impacts will be caused by compliance with the proposed rule amendment.

According to the above conclusion, Staff finds that the proposed rule amendment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because ( 1) it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a s ignificant adverse effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3)) and ( 2) it is as an action by a regulatory agency for protection of the environment (Class 8 Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines §15308).

FINDINGS

A. Necessity : The adoption of p roposed amended Rule satisfies the Districts objective to implement “Suggested Control Measure s” for the reduction of VOCs to achieve

attainment with ambient air standards for ozone , and meets the District’s requirements to implement “every feasible measur e” and “Best Available Retrofit Control Technology” as required under California Health and Safety Code Sections 40919 and 40914

.

B. Authority : California Health and Safety Code, Sections 40000, 40001, 40701, 40702,

40716 , 41010, and 41013, are provisions of law that provide the District with the authority

to adopt this proposed amended R ule.Staff Report

– Revision to Rule 2 18 October 14, 2010 Page 5

C. Clarity : There is no indication, at this time, that the proposed amended R ule is written in such a manner that persons affected by the R ule cannot easily understand the m.

D. Consistency : The proposed amended Rule is in harmony with, and not in conflict with or contradictory to, existing statutes, court decisions, or state or federal regulations.

E. Non

- duplication : The proposed amended Rule does not impose the same requireme nts as an existing state or federal regulation.

F. Reference : All statutes, court decisions, and other provisions of law used by the District in interpreting this proposed amended Rule is incorporated into this analysis and this finding by reference.

SUMMAR Y

Rule 2 18

, ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS , has been amended to address the “ Suggested Control Measure for Architectural Coatings” issued on October 26, 2007 by the California Air Resources

Board

. The SCM

- based coating category and VOC limit requirements are pro posed effective July
1, 2011.

Attachment 1: Proposed Rule 218 Amendment s

.

### ATTACHMENT #1

Amended Rule 218, Architectural Coatings